Nimrod Strategic/CAS platform?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod Strategic/CAS platform?
Probably been discussed somewhere before but another thread elsewhere on the internet got me discussing the following.
How many Paveway IV's could a Nimrod MRA4 carry internally if they were correctly configured (hyperthetically)?
As the MR2 already has a decent ISTAR capability together with communications relay and command features... the MRA4 together with its new systems already fitted could i'm sure be effectively configured for a combined ISTAR/C3 and CAS platform.
The USAF already use the B-1B Lancer in the Close Air Support role in Afghanistan using a SNIPER pod located under the cockpit.
The Nimrod could easily have a SNIPER or another targetting pod such as the LITENING III located on a hardpoint under the wings and have a bomb bay riddled with JDAMs or Paveways.
Obviously it comes down to cost and the MoD/Government being short sighted as they could have had a very capable platform doing several mission profiles at once whilst orbiting over theatre.
With Air Refuelling it could be doing the same type of mission as the B-1B but coupled with ISTAR as well from height. Saving the need for more fast air and ISTAR platforms and be on station for a considerable time supporting large scale assaults with both surveillance, targetting help and indeed close air support.
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.
Was this option ever looked at? Or overlooked?
I know i'm in wishful thinking mode and obviously we have no money to do such a thing but would it save "money" in the end if we did have such a programme in progress?
How many Paveway IV's could a Nimrod MRA4 carry internally if they were correctly configured (hyperthetically)?
As the MR2 already has a decent ISTAR capability together with communications relay and command features... the MRA4 together with its new systems already fitted could i'm sure be effectively configured for a combined ISTAR/C3 and CAS platform.
The USAF already use the B-1B Lancer in the Close Air Support role in Afghanistan using a SNIPER pod located under the cockpit.
The Nimrod could easily have a SNIPER or another targetting pod such as the LITENING III located on a hardpoint under the wings and have a bomb bay riddled with JDAMs or Paveways.
Obviously it comes down to cost and the MoD/Government being short sighted as they could have had a very capable platform doing several mission profiles at once whilst orbiting over theatre.
With Air Refuelling it could be doing the same type of mission as the B-1B but coupled with ISTAR as well from height. Saving the need for more fast air and ISTAR platforms and be on station for a considerable time supporting large scale assaults with both surveillance, targetting help and indeed close air support.
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.
Was this option ever looked at? Or overlooked?
I know i'm in wishful thinking mode and obviously we have no money to do such a thing but would it save "money" in the end if we did have such a programme in progress?
Razor 61, see
Aviation News Magazine - NIMROD MRA.4 – The Advanced Hunter
If this article is correct, and I assuming it is, then MRA4 can, in theory, carry Maverick and Storm Shadow, so no doubt other munitions such as Paveway should not be impossible.
While your suggestion of using MRA4 (the A stands for "attack" after all) in a CAS role undoubtably has some merit, there are several reasons why it won't happen:
1) The FJ centric RAF hierarchy won't want their thunder stolen, or any reason for the procurement of less FJs.
2) No doubt the maritime world will be too dyed in the wool "maritime centric" to push for this sort of role for MRA4.
3) With only 9 airframes there won't be enough to spare any for a CAS type of commitment.
4) The RAF/MOD is just not that good at "thinking outside the box"
5) Clearances for any weapons other than torpedoes probably haven't been trialled in order to save money.
No doubt there are yet more reasons which others will point out in due course...
Aviation News Magazine - NIMROD MRA.4 – The Advanced Hunter
If this article is correct, and I assuming it is, then MRA4 can, in theory, carry Maverick and Storm Shadow, so no doubt other munitions such as Paveway should not be impossible.
While your suggestion of using MRA4 (the A stands for "attack" after all) in a CAS role undoubtably has some merit, there are several reasons why it won't happen:
1) The FJ centric RAF hierarchy won't want their thunder stolen, or any reason for the procurement of less FJs.
2) No doubt the maritime world will be too dyed in the wool "maritime centric" to push for this sort of role for MRA4.
3) With only 9 airframes there won't be enough to spare any for a CAS type of commitment.
4) The RAF/MOD is just not that good at "thinking outside the box"
5) Clearances for any weapons other than torpedoes probably haven't been trialled in order to save money.
No doubt there are yet more reasons which others will point out in due course...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nimrod could easily have a SNIPER or another targetting pod such as the LITENING III located on a hardpoint under the wings and have a bomb bay riddled with JDAMs or Paveways
Do recall the trials with MR2 during falklands campaign when good old 1000 pounders were dropped on Larkhill range to prove it could be done , sighting was courtesy of 'chinagraph' !! If i recall correctly only 4 could be carried ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: On The Road
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) No doubt the maritime world will be too dyed in the wool "maritime centric" to push for this sort of role for MRA4.
If you think the 'maritime world' has not considered what it could do with the theoretical potential of the aircraft you don't know much about the maritime world. And don't accuse the maritime bit of the RAF of not being able to think outside the box. If you had any real idea about what the Nimrod and it's crews have done you would have left those couple of lines out.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, it could indeed be done.
But it won't be, because as has already been said, we're currently getting a maximum of 9, though others could better state exactly how many are on firm contract. Whatever happens, it's a racing certainty that we're not going to get more than 9.
This also neatly highlights the problem of Afghan-centric ops and project definition. It could be super helpful to cram a Vulcan's capacious bomb-bay full of 500lb EPIVs (and no, I've no idea how many it could carry - presume that it would bulk out before it ran out of lifting capacity) and have it cruise around over Helmand at FL400 ready to snot any Talib who fancied martyrdom.
But we haven't done it. And not only because we've not got any - but because they'd be very vulnerable to a modern IADS and we can't (unlike the US) afford to have niche - and very expensive - capabilities. Consequently, if the high priced help want to play in the high intensity warfare game, then they're going to have to cut their cloth accordingly, and the clue is in the Typhoon shaped piece of cloth they've come up with.
So are FJs optimal in Helmand with limited surface to air and no air to air threat? Probably not, but we're using them because we've got them. Is this the right choice? Yes, in my opinion.
Just my 0.02,
S41
But it won't be, because as has already been said, we're currently getting a maximum of 9, though others could better state exactly how many are on firm contract. Whatever happens, it's a racing certainty that we're not going to get more than 9.
This also neatly highlights the problem of Afghan-centric ops and project definition. It could be super helpful to cram a Vulcan's capacious bomb-bay full of 500lb EPIVs (and no, I've no idea how many it could carry - presume that it would bulk out before it ran out of lifting capacity) and have it cruise around over Helmand at FL400 ready to snot any Talib who fancied martyrdom.
But we haven't done it. And not only because we've not got any - but because they'd be very vulnerable to a modern IADS and we can't (unlike the US) afford to have niche - and very expensive - capabilities. Consequently, if the high priced help want to play in the high intensity warfare game, then they're going to have to cut their cloth accordingly, and the clue is in the Typhoon shaped piece of cloth they've come up with.
So are FJs optimal in Helmand with limited surface to air and no air to air threat? Probably not, but we're using them because we've got them. Is this the right choice? Yes, in my opinion.
Just my 0.02,
S41
Nimrod Weapons During Corporate
During Corporate the Nimrod did indeed carry retarded 1000lb bombs and Cluster bombs. The aiming system was a litle more sophisticated than chinagraph marks (but not much) bearing some similarity to the Vulcan Copilot's Visual Bomb Sight (CVBS).
A less well known episode was the plan (?) to carry Laser Guided Bombs (LGB). An entertaining Sunday afternoon was spent measuring up the bomb bay and the proposed stores but it progressed no further as the war ended shortly afterwards. We did enquire who would be the doing the target designation for LGB operations but received no reply.
YS
A less well known episode was the plan (?) to carry Laser Guided Bombs (LGB). An entertaining Sunday afternoon was spent measuring up the bomb bay and the proposed stores but it progressed no further as the war ended shortly afterwards. We did enquire who would be the doing the target designation for LGB operations but received no reply.
YS
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only the MR2 fleet had thought of this 6 (or was it 7) years ago (seem that wasn't the first time YS
) and suggested it, still I expect the FJ mafia would have killed off the idea PDQ 
At the moment Reaper/Predator are the best ISR/CAS platform for theatre, but the next best for ISR are long endurance manned platforms, add some weapons and hey presto more persistent ISR/CAS without an increase in airframes/types, personnel, ground footprint, fuel, tankers, supply etc. and the ability to rapidly deploy ISR/CAS a few thousand miles away at very short notice, a pair of MRA4 could provide near 24hrs coverage without AAR.
No need for an extra targeting pod, most EO cameras are capable of designating if you buy optional extras. MRA4s camera looks huge (reminds me of a ball turret on a B17!) so I would guess it could be upgraded, if not plenty of space for a nice MX20 with all the extras.
S41, that is the same mentality that the Army used to justify Snatch Landrover for so long rather than getting the correct equipment for task, it took us long enough to buy Reaper. I do get the impression that many of the UK air assets in theatre at the moment are there trying to justify their existence by showing us what they can do and not what is needed, they go out with the answer looking for a question.
We need a balanced Air Force, we will not evolve effectively by constantly using platforms not suited to the task.
P.S. Not sure it would be useful to "cram" a Vulcan full of 500lbers, we aren't carpet bombing them, 4 is more than enough for 99% of missions.
) and suggested it, still I expect the FJ mafia would have killed off the idea PDQ At the moment Reaper/Predator are the best ISR/CAS platform for theatre, but the next best for ISR are long endurance manned platforms, add some weapons and hey presto more persistent ISR/CAS without an increase in airframes/types, personnel, ground footprint, fuel, tankers, supply etc. and the ability to rapidly deploy ISR/CAS a few thousand miles away at very short notice, a pair of MRA4 could provide near 24hrs coverage without AAR.
No need for an extra targeting pod, most EO cameras are capable of designating if you buy optional extras. MRA4s camera looks huge (reminds me of a ball turret on a B17!) so I would guess it could be upgraded, if not plenty of space for a nice MX20 with all the extras.
S41, that is the same mentality that the Army used to justify Snatch Landrover for so long rather than getting the correct equipment for task, it took us long enough to buy Reaper. I do get the impression that many of the UK air assets in theatre at the moment are there trying to justify their existence by showing us what they can do and not what is needed, they go out with the answer looking for a question.
We need a balanced Air Force, we will not evolve effectively by constantly using platforms not suited to the task.
P.S. Not sure it would be useful to "cram" a Vulcan full of 500lbers, we aren't carpet bombing them, 4 is more than enough for 99% of missions.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]we aren't carpet bombing them[QUOTE]
They have more carpets than we have bombs, so just as well probably. Anyway, don't we have the USAF covering this niche mission with B-1s, B-2s and B-52s where needed?
On MR.2/LGB a very vague memory says two internal and optional two external was one option, I don't think it got much further than the measuring tape/pencil/graph paper stage though.
I think Charlie Luncher and Starboard Beam may know more?
They have more carpets than we have bombs, so just as well probably. Anyway, don't we have the USAF covering this niche mission with B-1s, B-2s and B-52s where needed?
On MR.2/LGB a very vague memory says two internal and optional two external was one option, I don't think it got much further than the measuring tape/pencil/graph paper stage though.
I think Charlie Luncher and Starboard Beam may know more?
Last edited by Gainesy; 11th Jan 2010 at 08:55.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only the MR2 fleet had thought of this 6 (or was it 7) years ago (seem that wasn't the first time YS) and suggested it, still I expect the FJ mafia would have killed off the idea PDQ
But since the RAF is run by fast jet jockey's, there's no chance you'd ever have someone consider disbanding the GR4's in favour of a few nimrods.
On the question of weapons. There has been pics of the MRA4's 4 wing hardpoints plus the bomb bay. Add a targeter to the EOS replacement. That would give you an aircraft with 14hrs flight time unrefuelled, 4 Storm Shadow's on the wings and probably 6 paveway in the bomb bay, or in my opinion a couple of dozen brimstone.
ps. The aircraft is wired for pretty much anything, so I see no reason why a Sniper pod or whatever wouldn't work with the current systems.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original Poster, my boldface:
Was that a slip of the keyboard? Hard to tell with Typhhon ref.
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.
Nimrod MR2 Stores Carriage
On MR.2/LGB a very vague memory says two internal and optional two external was one option, I don't think it got much further than the measuring tape/pencil/graph paper stage though.
YS
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure about carrying stuff on the wings (did anyone really take those Nimrod 2000 pictures seriously) there would be problems from drag reducing range and performance, A symmetric effect (isn't that why GR7/9 carried weapons on the inboards to reduce it?), psychological effect (much better to hide them in the bomb bay, the sheer presence of an aircraft may be enough to send the right message) and the large bomb bay is empty so why not put them there.
As for which weapons, I think it is better to work back from what you want to target. There are some quite effective smaller weapons in development and use now Viper Strike, SDB etc. I'm sure I read about the US looking one that could fit in the sonobuoy tubes (UAVs too!), if it was to target a few insurgents on foot then for example then a weapon that size should be OK and Nimrod could carry well over 100! MRA4 has a 1553B databus so should be able to interface with most weapons.
What about a small deployable UAV that could be dropped on a target, controlled by the aircraft to loiter (if needed) for final target ID and then be used as the weapon, man in the loop right up to impact and the ability to abort and/or re-target?
Bit of Googleing and
Undersized drone promises extended maritime surveillance. | Surveillance Technology from AllBusiness.com
As for which weapons, I think it is better to work back from what you want to target. There are some quite effective smaller weapons in development and use now Viper Strike, SDB etc. I'm sure I read about the US looking one that could fit in the sonobuoy tubes (UAVs too!), if it was to target a few insurgents on foot then for example then a weapon that size should be OK and Nimrod could carry well over 100! MRA4 has a 1553B databus so should be able to interface with most weapons.
What about a small deployable UAV that could be dropped on a target, controlled by the aircraft to loiter (if needed) for final target ID and then be used as the weapon, man in the loop right up to impact and the ability to abort and/or re-target?
Bit of Googleing and
Undersized drone promises extended maritime surveillance. | Surveillance Technology from AllBusiness.com
Original Poster, my boldface:
Quote:
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.
With what is left of the RAF and Navy I wouldn't be suprised if they haven't thought a lot about the 'Islas Malvinas' lately! Just wait for a bit of snow in the UK and walk in!
Quote:
It would also give the RAF back a strategic bombing platform if needed and would give the Argies something to think about other than Typhoons.
With what is left of the RAF and Navy I wouldn't be suprised if they haven't thought a lot about the 'Islas Malvinas' lately! Just wait for a bit of snow in the UK and walk in!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been rumbling around the MOD for over 10 years and certainly in the late 90s when I was working in OR(Air) procuring Storm Shadow, Paveway III, Brimstone and others! There was an eminent and outspoken very senior officer (named after a blended Whisky) who was determined to promote the use of a strategic bombing/mx launching Tristar and/or Nimrod. He was also behind a concentrated effort to cancel Eurofighter and purchase off-the-shelf F-16s instead.
The issue, of a strategic missile launcher with long stand-off range, was sound but unaffordable as there was not enough funding to equip all the FJs with SS, for example, let alone assets that, at that time, were required for other essential roles.
However, the role of CAS is usually undertaken at the tactical level of warfare and strategic HVAAs like Nimrod and Tristar would be rather too vulnerable to enemy fire (OK - not in the 'Stan, perhaps) given the limited stand-off ranges of weapons like PW and JDAM. More so for us Brits as the numbers that we are talking about are so few.
So, it's a nice idea at the strategic level but tactically, IMHO, a bit of a non-starter.
Foldie
The issue, of a strategic missile launcher with long stand-off range, was sound but unaffordable as there was not enough funding to equip all the FJs with SS, for example, let alone assets that, at that time, were required for other essential roles.
However, the role of CAS is usually undertaken at the tactical level of warfare and strategic HVAAs like Nimrod and Tristar would be rather too vulnerable to enemy fire (OK - not in the 'Stan, perhaps) given the limited stand-off ranges of weapons like PW and JDAM. More so for us Brits as the numbers that we are talking about are so few.
So, it's a nice idea at the strategic level but tactically, IMHO, a bit of a non-starter.
Foldie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Preston
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough Said.............
We have put CASOM on it, I have photos at work. It has a Mil Std 1760 databus and stores management system from the F-18E/F, anything is possible. However, it is not a requirement..........such a shame
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.S. Not sure it would be useful to "cram" a Vulcan full of 500lbers, we aren't carpet bombing them, 4 is more than enough for 99% of missions.
What's the fully extended loiter time? What is the deployed footprint?
There is a good reason why CAS platforms are traditionally small and agile (AC-130 excepting). Easier to deploy closer to the action, greater survivability, not so high value both monitarily and in human cost.
As Ivan said, 4 bombs is quite enough, and over a pair of GR4s, you've got more way more than that, for less cost.
I realise that it is sexy to tool up the bigger aircraft. I'm all for it, stick a few more things on that go bang. But we've got aircraft doing the job well at the moment. And as for future conflicts, I'd bet on Fast Air taking the bulk of offensive operations.
TTH, your humble FJ Mafia rep.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yellow Sun
We did enquire who would be the doing the target designation for LGB operations but received no reply.
There's also the fairly well-known story about how the taking of the hills above Port Stanley put the LTM in line of sight. One LGB was used to destroy a troublesome 155mm arty piece; the list of the next night's targets (including Gen Menendez' HQ) was transmitted in clear...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foldie, I agree Nimrod would not be a "day one" CAS platform in an all out war (you might be surprised how far forward it has operated during hostilities) but as soon as you have air superiority it would provide a very efficient and persistent platform with an extremely fast sensor to shooter cycle.
I know very little about the world of mud but is CAS always tactical and what is it called when it isn't close to friendlies? The target sets may not always be tactical, eg: Scud hunting, Sadam via Elint, etc. but they do require persistence and rapid engagement.
A long range rapidly (hours) deployable ISR/CAS platform must be very useful in most of our current contingency plans? The US have modified the B-1 and B-52 to provide persistent CAS/ISR although they are expensive to operate, an ISR/CAS MRA4 would be much cheaper while still retaining all it's other roles, the RAF needs to look for smarter ways to operate and stop clinging to Cold War dogma of everything pointy, otherwise it will disappear.
TTH thanks for humouring me, not sexy at all to "tool up the bigger aircraft", for us it would mean even more training and checks, greater risk by carring things that go bang, more deployments, reducing our pie loadout, etc. but I do think it would be more efficient and relevent than current assets, maybe that's why it hasn't happened? As for future confilcts I would also bet on fast air taking the bulk of offensive ops as they are the only ones who currently can
MRA4 crew 10 (not sure what min crew would be, MR2 is 7)
Groundies less than 10 I would guess
So 2 aircraft and ground shifts for a total of 40ish including XO, Ops O etc.
I know very little about the world of mud but is CAS always tactical and what is it called when it isn't close to friendlies? The target sets may not always be tactical, eg: Scud hunting, Sadam via Elint, etc. but they do require persistence and rapid engagement.
A long range rapidly (hours) deployable ISR/CAS platform must be very useful in most of our current contingency plans? The US have modified the B-1 and B-52 to provide persistent CAS/ISR although they are expensive to operate, an ISR/CAS MRA4 would be much cheaper while still retaining all it's other roles, the RAF needs to look for smarter ways to operate and stop clinging to Cold War dogma of everything pointy, otherwise it will disappear.
TTH thanks for humouring me, not sexy at all to "tool up the bigger aircraft", for us it would mean even more training and checks, greater risk by carring things that go bang, more deployments, reducing our pie loadout, etc. but I do think it would be more efficient and relevent than current assets, maybe that's why it hasn't happened? As for future confilcts I would also bet on fast air taking the bulk of offensive ops as they are the only ones who currently can
MRA4 crew 10 (not sure what min crew would be, MR2 is 7)
Groundies less than 10 I would guess
So 2 aircraft and ground shifts for a total of 40ish including XO, Ops O etc.